State v. K. A. S. ( 2019 )

173
Submitted November 5, affirmed December 4, 2019
In the Matter of K. A. S.,
a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
K. A. S.,
Appellant.
Lane County Circuit Court
18CC06606; A169734
453 P3d 637
Maurice K. Merten, Judge.
Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Hannah K. Hoffman, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge,
and Powers, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
174 State v. K. A. S.
PER CURIAM
Appellant appeals a judgment committing her to the
custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to
exceed 180 days. The trial court committed appellant on the
ground that her mental illness made her unable to provide
for her basic needs, ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B), and also made her
dangerous to others, ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). Appellant con-
tends that the evidence is insufficient to support her com-
mitment on either ground. The state argues that the evi-
dence is sufficient to support a basic-needs commitment and
tells us in its brief that it “responds only to appellant’s argu-
ment regarding her ability to care for her basic needs.”
Neither party has requested de novo review, and
nothing in the record suggests that this is the sort of extraor-
dinary case in which de novo review would be appropriate.
Therefore, “[w]e review for legal error the trial court’s deter-
mination that the evidence is legally sufficient to support
appellant’s civil commitment[.]” State v. C. K., 300 Or App
313, 314, 451 P3d 243 (2019).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the
evidence is not sufficient to support the determination that
appellant’s mental illness made her dangerous to others
within the meaning of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). It is, however,
sufficient to support the determination that appellant’s men-
tal illness made her unable to meet her basic needs within
the meaning of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B). That is, the evidence
allows the conclusion that appellant was “unable to provide
for * * * her basic personal needs in a way that leaves [her]
at nonspeculative risk” that her “safe survival will be com-
promised” in the near future absent commitment. State v.
M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019). In partic-
ular, it allows for the conclusion that, at the time of the hear-
ing, appellant’s mental illness made her unable to manage
her medical condition so as to compromise her near-term
safe survival. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.